×

This is the title to the last chapter of Stephen Westerholm’s terrific book Perspectives Old and New on Paul: The “Lutheran” Paul and His Critics (Eerdmans 2004). Evangelical and reformed types concerned with the New Perspective(s) on Paul have rightly turned to John Piper, D.A. Carson, Tom Schreiner, and Guy Waters for help. But too few, I would guess, have looked to Stephen Westerholm. They should. I have only a few books by Westerholm and have not yet finished this one, but I like what I’ve read before and what I’m reading now.

The “Whimsical Introduction” where Martin Luther reads Sanders, Dunn, and Wright is ingenious and (surprisingly for a serious scholar) actually quite whimsical. In Part One, Westherholm examines Paul and justification through his classic interpreters: Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley. Despite their differences in theology, these four expositors produced a remarkably similar “Lutheran” Paul and a consistent doctrine of justification. In Part Two, he explores the twentieth-century responses to the “Lutheran” Paul. In Part Three, Westerholm looks at the Pauline texts for himself to demonstrate that the “Lutheran” Paul might not be too far off from the real Paul.

Which brings us to the title of this post and the last chapter of the book. While Westerholm admits that “the alternatives of our title are falsely put” he is trying to make an important point (440). One of the key issues, if not the issue, that divides the “Lutheran” Paul from his new critics is “whether ‘justification by faith, not by works of the law” means ‘Sinners find God’s approval by grace, through faith, not by anything they do,’ or whether its thrust is that ‘Gentiles are included in the people of God by faith without the bother of becoming Jews'” (445). This fairly gets at the crux of the matter. Was Paul’s doctrine of justification about being right with God by faith alone or was it about the abrogation of food laws, special rites, and special days?

Of course, in one sense, as Westerholm points out, justification was clearly about both and we must do justice to both. But doing justice to both does not mean we let historical reconstruction rob God’s people of theological gold and pastoral comfort.

As I see things, the critics have rightly defined the occasion that elicited the formulation of Paul’s doctrine and have reminded us of its first-century social and strategic significance; the “Lutherans,” for their part, rightly captured Paul’s rationale and basic point. For those (like Augustine, Luther, Calvin, and Wesley) bent on applying Paul’s words to contemporary situations, it is the point rather than the historical occasion of the formulation that is crucial (445).

In other words, let us say thank you to the New Perspective for reminding us that great doctrine of justification was, for Paul, tied up in the nitty-gritty of diet, foreskins, ethnic tensions, and the history and purpose of Israel. But let us never forget that all of this gave rise to the bold proclamation of the precious news that “by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, not a result of works, so that no one may boast” (Eph. 2:8-9).

So yes, justification by faith resulted in the “erasing of ethnic boundaries.” But Augustine, Luther, Calvin, Wesley and every faithful gospel preacher before and after them have also been right to preach the good news of “grace abounding to sinners.” This is the heartbeat, the tap root, and basic point of justification by faith. And if this happens to be “Lutheran” that’s ok, because it happens to be biblical too.

LOAD MORE
Loading